February 13, 2016

Vincent Davis: Good morning. You’re on Blog Talk Radio, talkradioexperts.com with Attorney Vincent Davis. And today’s show, our weekly Saturday morning show is Get Your Kids Back Now. This is a show dedicated to helping people giving information, taking calls from people who might have questions or want to share their stories with us about their interactions and experiences with child protective services throughout the state of California and throughout the country. And also we are — one of our goals is to help people organized to vote, to vote in friendly state legislators who are child-friendly and who can change laws and also vote in and vote out child-friendly and family-friendly judges who are friendly with our family structuring, interested in keeping families together.

Before we start our show today I want to go over the three things that I always mentioned and if you have a CPS or a DCFS case, it is important for you to, number one, get experienced and expert legal help. That may mean working with your court appointed attorney or hire a new private attorney. You can always work with your court appointed attorney and call a private attorney for second opinion.

The second thing you must do is you must get the necessary information. You can download that information from internet sites, for example at my website you can download my free eBook which was written for parents and relatives to explain the DCFS and the CPS court process. You can contact us. We can help you with getting further information.

And the most important way to get information is to have a meeting with your attorney, strategize before the court date. I get a lot of calls where clients or potential clients explain to me that they don’t get to talk to their attorney except for the five minutes before they walk in to court. That’s going to be difficult in most situations for you to have a good outcome in court.

The third thing that I asked that you do is registered a vote. You have important power in this political system and unless you registered your vote and unless you vote you cannot exercise that power and it’s going to be hard for you to complain that you’re not getting justice within our state system when you have these CPS and DCFS cases.

I’m going to get to the phone right now and take our first call area code 650, ending in 05. Good morning, you’re on with Attorney Vincent Davis.

Vincent Davis: Okay. Well, I’m going to take another call. I’ll take another call.

Female: Okay.

Vincent Davis: By the way, you can listen through your computer as well at talkradioexperts.com, but you can also listen on your phone. You can also listen on your phone, that’s no problem. Thank you for listening. I’m going to take…

Female: Okay. Awesome. I’m sorry about that.

Vincent Davis: No problem. Okay. I’m going to take another call. It’s area code 562, ending in 09. Good morning.

Chiu: Hi, my name is Chiu. I’m calling in to share my story about child protective services.

Vincent Davis: Go ahead. Tell us.

Chiu: Hi. Yeah. Well, I had a massive dispute with my husband at the end of last month and I guess they required to notify child services. And a few days later they showed up to my home, did a few investigative meetings. I didn’t really ever think they would take my children because my home is clean, my kids are happy. I’ve never had any police to my home ever before. And then after few days ago on the 2nd of this month they served me a warrant and removed my three children from my home.

Vincent Davis: How old are your children?

Chiu: I have two three-year-old twins and just a three-month old baby.

Vincent Davis: Oh, my goodness. Where are the children now? Are they in foster care with the relatives?

Chiu: Yeah, they sent them to foster care — foster home hours away from where I live and they made it difficult for anyone else to take my children. Because they took them on this [0:05:18 inaudible] date, I was supposed to have a court date yesterday on a Friday but because of the holidays I cannot have court until Tuesday. So now I’m waiting a full week instead of the three days to have a chance to get my children back.

Vincent Davis: Yes. The courts were closed yesterday for the holiday and they’re going to close Monday for the holiday. But tell me about when did you say they took the children from you?

Chiu: Tuesday, February 2nd.

Vincent Davis: And when did this alleged incidence of domestic violence happen between you and your spouse?

Chiu: I’m sorry. They took my kids on February 9th, the following Tuesday. I’m sorry about that. February 9th. And it happened with my spouse, that was on January 22nd.

Vincent Davis: Okay. So that was a long time in between. Did they actually get a warrant to take your children from you?

Chiu: Yes, they had a warrant.

Vincent Davis: Did you get to see the warrant?

Chiu: Yes.

Vincent Davis: And was there something attached to the warrant called the application for court order or application for a warrant?

Chiu: I can look at it and find out.

Vincent Davis: Because that’s probably the most important part of the warrant process. It’s what the social worker has sworn under penalty of perjury to a judge in order to get an order to detain your children. And in order to detain your children, the social worker has to tell something to the judge that’s not only serious but also an immediate, you know, emergency. Now, after the event of the alleged domestic violence, did your spouse move out of the home?

Chiu: Yes.

Vincent Davis: Did the social worker know that?

Chiu: Yes. I told her that but she did not believe me. She called my neighbors and they said they thought they had seen his car here and all of that.

Vincent Davis: Are these friendly neighbors that you have or you’re not really friends with them or…

Chiu: We just moved into this house not very long ago, so I don’t really know them very well.

Vincent Davis: Okay. So your first court date is Tuesday, right?

Chiu: Yes.

Vincent Davis: Let me give you some information. If you have a pen and paper, you might want to jot this down or you can listen to the replay of the show whether onto the — the first thing that I want you to do…

Chiu: No, I have a pen.

Vincent Davis: Okay. The first thing I want you to do is I want you to make a list of 25 names, addresses and telephone numbers of relatives who could take one or all of your children. So these are going to have to be friendly relatives. And also list their relationship to the child. Under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 309, a social worker has to investigate all relatives for possible placement.

I want to tell you that the placement or these relatives can be anywhere in the United States. For that matter, they can be anywhere in the world. So you can have children placed in another country. You can have children placed in another state. You can have children placed in another county.

So if for example I gathered by your area code, you live in Los Angeles County, if you have relatives in San Bernardino or Riverside or Orange County, they should be on the list. A social worker has an obligation to find these relatives to assess them and to place children with them immediately because being with strangers in foster care is not the best place for children.

So I want you to make that list and I want you to make sure you give it to your attorney at court or before you — the best thing is you should probably talk to your attorney before court and perhaps on Monday — Monday is a holiday, court holiday, so perhaps you can either meet with your attorney on Monday. That will be a great thing and you guys can strategize how to get the children back to you or — and/or how to get the children plan B to one of these relatives. Does that make sense to you?

Chiu: Okay. Yes.

Vincent Davis: Well, I want to thank you for calling in this morning and sharing your story with us. Good luck at your court hearing on Tuesday.

Chiu: Thank you.

Vincent Davis: I just want to mention to all of you listening that it’s important before you go to your first court hearing that you should probably Google and read California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 319 and also review Section 309 and Section — I was just reading Section 316 as well this morning, that’s very important with these initial hearings. So remember, get the necessary information that you need before you go to court.

Okay. I’m going to take another call. It’s area code 323, ending in 90. Good morning, you’re on with Attorney Vincent Davis.

Daisy: Good morning.

Vincent Davis: Hi.

Daisy: Good morning, Mr. Davis. My name is Daisy and I’m calling because I’ve been dealing with these issues since October of 2015. I do have my children in my custody at the moment but one of the conditions was that I needed to live with my eldest sibling and unfortunately she sold her house and she’s living — she moved in with relatives of hers and I — there’s no longer any space available for me and my children to live with her. And so now I moved in with another sister of mine but DCFS thinks that it is a danger to my children for me to live with my sister because my ex-husband knows where she lives and so right now I am — I honestly don’t know what steps I should take or what is it that I should do in this matter.

Vincent Davis: Okay. So why is DCFS worried that your husband will know where you live and perhaps be a risk to the children at this new sister’s house?

Daisy: Okay. So my whole case opened because my husband has federal charges against him and he skipped his bail and so he’s being looked for by the US Marshall and they’re saying that he’s involved with a cartel. And so they’re saying that since he’s at large he can come and trying to steal my children from me and take them with him. And since this is a known address, an address that he knows about that they would not want me living here.

Vincent Davis: I see. So let me give you some advice. Now, the social workers know that you’re — where you were living that sister sold the house, correct?

Daisy: Correct.

Vincent Davis: And you’ve informed them that you’d moved in with another sister with the children, correct?

Daisy: I have not yet called the social worker because we actually thought we had until the end of the month to move out of that house but they were told that they needed to be out. Today was the last day that could have any of their belongings in the home and so I haven’t yet notified my social worker that’s assigned to my case to let her know that I’m moving back with my sister in Montebello.

Vincent Davis: Okay. So when you know that by the sister — excuse me, when you know it by the social worker, make sure that you tell her where you or you’re back with the sister and make sure you tell the social worker why you moved. Now, you might want to do this — you might want to do this via email. By the way, today is Saturday, I don’t think the social worker is working today or tomorrow or Monday because Monday is a holiday. So she probably won’t get this information until Tuesday. But I’m going to tell you what you should do.

Daisy: Okay.

Vincent Davis: I’m glad you called in because this has brought up an issue that I haven’t thought about for a long time but it is the law in California. In California, juvenile dependency proceedings are governed by something called the California Welfare and Institutions Code and in that code we mainly deal with Sections 300 to 390, but there are a lot of other sections in the Welfare and Institutions Code that apply to juvenile dependency cases.

For example there’s a lot of things in section — the 200 section but the section that covers your situation I believe are the 16500 et cetera sections. And in certain cases, the Department of Children and Family Services has these social workers throughout the state and I believe probably throughout the country but I don’t know because I’m not licensed to any other states; that’s California.

In California, they require the social workers in the counties to give you something called family reunification services and family maintenance services. Those are services designed to keep your family together. Now, most people in most cases, those services mean services like parenting classes, counseling for the parent, counseling for the children, anger management classes, rehabilitation classes and drug testing, all of those are your typical family reunification and family maintenance services. But there are other services and one of those services that I have successful argued in at least one case was that the social workers and the county provide you with housing.

So let me tell you the case and this happened years ago. I represented a woman who allegedly was on drugs and she had five children. Now, she lost her children and the children were placed in five different foster homes. And during the six-month review process, this woman was a star. She had done all of her reunification services. So when we came up to the six-month review, the social worker said, you know, I would give her the kids back but she doesn’t have a place to live. You see what happened in the interim when she lost her children she lost her public housing to the City of Los Angeles, and I think she had Section 8 Housing. And because she didn’t have the children, she lost that Section 8 Housing. So basically she was living with friends on couches and she had put [0:18:01 inaudible] in all of the programs. So the only thing that was holding her back was she didn’t have a place for these children to live.

So I thought — and the case was in front of a judge who tended to be physically conservative. And I thought about the best way to try to turn that around and I found out that the children being placed in these foster homes were approximately $9,000 or $10,000 a month. $9,000 or $10,000 a month, the county is paying for this lady and the children to be in foster care. So I made an argument, I actually wrote a formal motion for the county. Instead of paying $10,000 a month in foster care, I wrote a motion that they should give the lady, you know, $1,500 or $2,000 to get an apartment for the children. The county would save money, right?

Well, after many continuances by the county, they finally agreed, they didn’t want the judge to grant my motion, so I would do the motion. I guess they wanted to say, Vince, you didn’t want to set a precedence. But they finally gave this woman an apartment, like three-bedroom apartment I think and they paid for it. And then on top of that all of a sudden they found this extra money to buy her for appliances. So eventually she got her children back because she had a home and the county and the state and federal government save money because instead of, you know, warehousing these children in five different foster homes, they put all the children and the mother together in an apartment which they paid for and it saved the county money.

So in your particular situation, I suggest that you and your attorney, tell the social workers, hey, if you don’t want me live in here, that’s fine. Find me a place to live because under the code 16500 sections, you’re responsible to do that. I bet that when they hear that and they talk to their attorney about it they’re going to say, oh, you know, your sister is not so bad. If your husband shows up, don’t forget to call us. So, that’s what I think just for your particular case when you speak with your attorney. I want to thank you for calling in. Please listen to us next week on Saturday at 8:00 AM, all right?

Daisy: Thank you very much, Mr. Davis, for all of your assistance.

Vincent Davis: Thank you. You know, I hadn’t thought about that in a while that getting the county to help pay for the client’s housing because sometimes the clients do need housing in order to get their children or to keep their children back just as this woman needed.

Now, I’m going to get a lot of calls this morning, so I’m going to take another couple. It’s area code 816, ending in 33. Good morning, you’re on with Attorney Vincent Davis.

Rosemary: Hey, good morning, Mr. Davis.

Vincent Davis: Good morning.

Rosemary: Hi, my name is Rosemary and I’m calling in regards to a niece of mine I met in the foster care in San Francisco.

Vincent Davis: Okay. What’s going on around there?

Rosemary: Well, oh, my gosh, it’s such a long and very disheartening journey so far but I had expressed interest as well as my desire to take placements for adoption of my niece when she was taken into custody. The agency knew about me because I also have placement for adoption of her brother as well as her three older sisters. They were telling me that, oh, don’t worry, like it has to go through a process and plus I live out of state so I have to go through the ICPC and so I was kind of just, you know, just leaning on what they were saying, just having think that everything was going to work out.

When I visited with the baby for the first time when I went to California to pick up her brother, I had met the baby and met the foster parent. And it was pretty clear for me at that visit that they were wanting to adopt this baby. They thought that, you know, that’s the route that it was going. So I expressed those concerns to the agency and again they reassured me, no, don’t worry about anything. Everything is going to, you know, be fine. We’re going to check you out first.

And so time went on, so from March until July, a call from the adoption worker, so it’s the same adoption worker for the brother as well as the baby sister, stating that she was going to initiate the ICPC process. So that was done completed in September. San Francisco didn’t receive it until October. And they then told me that, you know, they were recommending placement with me but that now the foster parents have already filed something with the court already obtained a certain status and have an attorney. And then I was kind of, you know, just told, you know, don’t worry, we’re recommending placement.

And then this past week Tuesday I received a call from the agency as well as the attorney stating that they were going to change the recommendation because it just seems everything that they’re receiving from the other side it just makes more sense then it’s just better for everyone and less damaging to just leave the baby there, so we weren’t going to go to court to, you know, to have — to recommend that placement. And so because I’m not a party to the case that, you know, just made everything that much more difficult and heartbreaking.

Vincent Davis: So they led you to believe all this time that they were going to place the child with you and then changed their mind?

Rosemary: Yes. I believe so. I mean, really — I’m going to read [0:24:48 inaudible] I mean, the flags were there and I expressed all those concerns to them and I’ve always been in touch with them just in regards to the baby’s case inquiring about court hearings, how can I be involved, what do I need to do, and just told, no, don’t worry, don’t worry. And then, you know, I was told that I was going to have placement and I myself don’t understand except for the fact that, you know, for them it’s just what would be more convenient instead of having to go to court. But it’s very possible that maybe they had their own hidden agenda from the beginning but just kind of just making it appear as though they were working towards having this baby with her blood family and with her siblings.

Vincent Davis: Well, that’s the law. You know, that’s what makes part of these proceedings constitutional is that that if the parents can’t have the children, the children must be placed or should be placed with relatives and that’s, you know, throughout the code, throughout the Welfare and Institutions Code. It’s very clear. You know, what happens is somebody gave me an opinion, another attorney told me this and I think — I think it’s true. I think social workers have an in — I don’t know. They’re prejudice against people who live out of this county or out of this state, that’s what it seems like to me. And I think the reason for part of it is, you know, this whole CPS process is revenue generating for the counties.

And this attorney told me and I think it’s true. The money follows the child. So if they take the child back to you out of state, no more money for San Francisco regarding this child. Now, your case sounds very much like a case I did a couple of — well, maybe 18 months ago in Riverside. And this is a story and I — it still boggles my mind when I think about this case.

A woman came to California and settled in the Palm Springs area, she and her boyfriend. They had a baby; they were involved in drugs. At the very first hearing, the mother’s first cousin flew from Oklahoma to Los Angeles drove down to Palm Springs and appeared at the first hearing. And I think she and her husband appeared at this hearing.

The husband was a principal at a school in Oklahoma and the wife, the first cousin, was a very successful businesswoman. And they were told at the very first hearing that the child would be placed with them. Well, the case drags on and drags on and then they get to the point where they terminate the parental rights of the child. And the child is still not placed with the relatives in Oklahoma. There were something called an ICPC which is called the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children that had to be accomplished.

Rosemary: Right.

Vincent Davis: That had to be accomplished. And for whatever reason Oklahoma and California, they kept pointing their finger at each other. They never got this ICPC completed. Now, the important thing was nobody ever asked for and expedited ICPC which is different from an ICPC and expedited ICPC has to be finished and completed within 30 days by statute. So social workers, you know, in all states run around and make sure that these expedited ICPCs are completed. But on the regular ICPCs for some reason, you know, they get lost on people’s desks. It just drags along, you know, never gets completed. And what happened was after the parental rights were terminated, the ICPC was approved for the Oklahoma relatives.

Now, there’s something that you have to understand. In California right now, it’s my opinion that after the parental rights have been terminated, the relative’s preference for placement seems to disappear and I think that’s a loophole in the law. And a lot of people who are pro foster parent and pro child argued that that preference should disappear because now the child has been physically and emotionally bonded to the foster parent. And by the way, in some cases, that may be true. In some cases, it’s not true because the child keeps moving around, you know, in different foster homes.

But what makes up this whole system legal and the Supreme Court said — the Supreme Court of the United States said many years ago in the case, the family is the fabric of our society and if we don’t respect those familial relationships there’s going to be a breakdown in society and I see that happening all the time in these types of cases. So the thing that you have to do is you have to file several things with the juvenile court. You have to file a de facto parent motion. You have to — and by the way people will say, well, you’re not entitled to file that because you never will the caretaker.

Rosemary: Right.

Vincent Davis: You can get standing under a case in California code in Ray Charles S and that basically says you can have standing in the case if you’re a relative and you’ve shown an interest in this child. Now you’re telling me that you showed up or you told the social workers from the very beginning, hey, I want this child. So in my opinion you meet that requirement.

The other thing that you have to file was something called a 388 Petition and that’s to change the order. You have to prove and show that it would be best for this child to be with family. The next thing you have to file is you have to file something called an 827 Petition. You have to file that so that you can get access to the evidence to the court and records, the social worker’s reports about this child.

Now, the fact, you know, I found it amazing. You said you had siblings of this child already placed with you by San Francisco?

Rosemary: Yes. No, so it’s been a long…

Vincent Davis: That’s incredible.

Rosemary: It’s been a long story with these kiddos but I love them and it’s been a really great learning experience. But the three older sisters are actually with somebody in another county and we’re actually, you know, we’re pretty close to finalizing their adoptions after almost seven years. But we’re glad, we’re very happy where we’re at. So they’re in another county.

And then I have the baby brother who was in a similar situation for the baby where he was born and then picking him to custody because my cousin had abandoned him as well at the hospital. So the agencies known about me, you know. They’ve known our, you know, family dynamics and the siblings were here. They’ve known about me and they’ve known that I’ve expressed time and time again not only through phone conversation but through email correspondence that I was really enable and willing to be whatever it took to not just keep the child with family but also to be raised with their siblings considering the circumstances that at least, at the very least that they didn’t have their biological parents but their loving and sharing family member and they’d be able to, you know, live with him the culture as well as, you know, other family members and staying with her siblings. And they’ve known me so long — I’m sorry.

Vincent Davis: I wanted to — that’s all right. I wanted to mention that there were two other things that you should probably do as well. A lot of attorneys, a lot of juvenile judges will disagree with me unless but I maintain my position. You should also file petition for temporary and a petition for permanent legal guardianship of the child. There are reasons to do that involving best interest and leverage but I won’t get into that. I just suffice it to say I think those should be filed.

Now, that case I told you about Riverside with the relatives from Oklahoma?

Rosemary: Right.

Vincent Davis: When we have the trial to have the child placed with the relatives, the judge ruled that it was too late for the relatives to get the child. And the judges now have said it was no fault of the relatives but that the social workers and he, you know, mentioned that I think Riverside as well as Oklahoma had dropped the ball and insinuated that the relatives would have a, you know, big loss of the case, the County of Riverside and the social workers and perhaps even Oklahoma.

So in your particular case if, you know, if they knew about you and they knew about these siblings, the group of you may have a huge lawsuit against the social workers and the county and the City of San Francisco because they should have placed this child with you. You know, I get the feeling in a lot of cases that social workers become beholden to foster parents because in a lot of cases foster parents do provide, you know, a great service to the community. They’re taking children when, you know, there’s no one else around to take them. But sometimes that beholdenness, if you will, gives somebody else a cue because foster parents are supposed to take children while there’s no parents or family didn’t take the children.

Now, in your case, not only are you family and you can take the child but you have other siblings of the child. So this is that situation that kind of get this cue and you wonder why what was the incentive for the foster parent never to place the child with you. I mean, at the very beginning they should have told those foster parents, look, this is going to be a temporary thing, you know. If you don’t want to take the child permanently or if you know that we’re not going to give you this child permanently because we have this lady in another state who has siblings maybe they wouldn’t have gotten attached, maybe they wouldn’t have gotten to court and gotten standing, maybe they would’ve said no and let the child go to another foster parent because I heard you and your story they’ve already made a motion for standing and they have standing in the court, so they’re fighting to keep your relative’s child away from you.

Now, I want to tell you just briefly. Many years ago I was working with an attorney and we had come up with a theory, a theory that you could [0:36:37 inaudible] foster parents who do this. Because one of the things when you basically as a foster parent you take an oath, you know, to help reunified the child with the parent or family. And here they are, you know, rushing in to adopt this child away from the family. In my opinion and a lot of people will disagree with me but in my opinion that’s not just right and it’s anti family. It’s anti family. It’s not right and I think, you know, we should try to vote in and change some laws in California that will prevent this situation from happening.

You know, I’m going to thank you for calling in and sharing your story but I have to move on…

Rosemary: Thank you.

Vincent Davis: I’ll have to move on to our next call and good luck to you.

Rosemary: Okay. Thank you.

Vincent Davis: Okay. I’m going to take some other calls right now but before that I do that I want to explain something because I got a few emails about this. Before a case is filed in a juvenile court, usually what happens is that a social worker comes in and speaks to you. Now, I want you to remember something. Social workers are professionals and they know what they’re doing, they know how to get what they want but I want to tell you what your rights are.

So number one, you don’t have to talk to a social worker if you are a parent. Number two, you don’t have to do a drug test for a social worker if you are a parent. So at the beginning of the case or before case is even filed, if a social worker comes to your home, my advice to you in most situations, perhaps not all, but most situations, don’t talk to the social worker and surely don’t talk to the social worker without an attorney being present.

Now, social workers may ask to see you and talk to your children. In most cases, I advise again that as well. Now, social worker can go get a warrant and the warrant can allow the social worker to come to your home, to come in to your home, inspect your home and talk to your children and inspect your children. That’s not a warrant to talk to you. It’s not a warrant to make you do parenting classes. It’s not a warrant to make you do drug testing. It’s not a warrant to get you — to have your husband move out to the house. Okay. They can’t do that. Now, they can threaten to take away your children but in most — I don’t want to say in most cases, in a lot of cases, social workers get warrant and they don’t give out the application for the warrant.

I just had one client tell me, oh, the social workers said I didn’t have — she didn’t have to give the client the application for the warrant. The application for the warrant is the story the social worker told the judge in order to get that warrant and it’s signed by the social worker under penalty of perjury. In my experience when I see these applications for warrant, they contain untruths. They contain exaggerations. And I, you know, suffice it to say — well, I’ll go up in [0:40:09 inaudible] I don’t know, it’s just outright lie.

So you want to make sure you get that application for warrant and you want to make sure that your attorney if you end up in court get that application for warrant so that you can see it and read it because if the social worker had exaggerated or lied or not told the truth or twisted some texts, that social worker and that county may be subject to civil liability. You might be able to sue for violations of your civil rights. And unless you do that and unless everyone does that and holds these social workers accountable, they’re going to continue doing what they do.

So even if the social worker tells you, “You have to talk to me, you have to let in your house,” if they don’t have a warrant they can’t come in to your house and they can never get a warrant to make you talk to them. There is nothing in the law that requires you to talk to the social worker. Now, a lot of social workers will tell clients or imply the clients, “Hey, if you don’t talk to me I’m going to tell the judge that you are uncooperative.”

In my opinion, there’s nothing in the law that requires it but I will acknowledge that a lot of judges may be swayed by the fact that you won’t talk to a social worker. They might look at it as being an uncooperative. But on the scale of one to ten, I consider that a five. If you talk to the social worker and the social worker gets evidence against you because you thought you were smart enough to take your way out of the situation, don’t forget you’re dealing with a professional.

That social worker is going to gather a lot of information, some true, some maybe exaggerated, who knows, but it’s going to be evidence used against you in a court case down the road. So remember that, it’s the same thing you see on TV, criminal defendant being interviewed by the police. There’s an old term, lawyer up, don’t talk to the police. And in these cases, don’t talk to the social workers.

Now, is that an absolute rule? No, of course not. There may be some situations where might be to your advantage to speak to the social worker but you won’t know that. Consult an attorney. You know, get a free consultation for an attorney that does this type of work and, you know, call me, ask me, tell me the situation that you’re in.

Okay. I’m going to take another call from a caller. Hello, you’re on with Attorney Vincent Davis in Get Your Kids Back Now. Hello?

Bob: Hello.

Vincent Davis: Hi, this is Attorney Vince…

Bob: Hello?

Vincent Davis: Yes. This is Attorney Vincent Davis.

Bob: Can you hear me?

Vincent Davis: I can hear you loud and clear and so with our listeners.

Bob: Okay. Great. You’d recognize me. Well, I called two weeks ago when I met you. This is Bob and Terry. We’ve been in a nightmare in the last two weeks we got so bad that we’ve been unable to really do too much. I will start explaining you about my story beginning and we need to get [0:43:36 inaudible] because I came on kind of late. Where do you want me to start?

Vincent Davis: Okay. Bob, start from the beginning.

Bob: Okay. We are a loving couple. We’ve been together for 26 years and we have three older children that grown up and so for the other three younger children. Unfortunately, I’d been working for 45 years and it started in 2007 with the claps of the banks and then it kind of went to domino effect and I would do work for the state of California doing roads and highways. And I had contract for them for the work contracts with them and they wrote me an IU for all this contract work and I couldn’t get a credit line to get the job started so I had to close the company and for the first of my life I was without work. I started working in my life at 15, always been a provider and I’ve always paid my bills and never had any trouble with not paying my bills.

In the first year and a half was okay but the kids and the family including my wife, it was hard on her, that I had to stop allowances, I had to stop the Disneyland passes, all these things that we have, you know, and we live in a really nice and affluent neighborhood. In a year and a half I just couldn’t pay the mortgage. The mortgage was the first thing that hit. Now, I did have some money that I want to invest in a business and I thought would work and I invested about 55,000 and of course I found out later that I got had. And so on my first time investment I was trying to make ends meet.

So I have been looking for and it’s really hard because of my age, because they don’t say they don’t discriminate but they do in a fact because I don’t look my age, I don’t feel my age but they take age as a factor. And so I was really struggling, you know. I was struggling with finances and so many network into a [0:45:37 inaudible] or I started to give up [0:45:38 inaudible] and I have three younger children and they’re all in [0:45:45 inaudible] schools. Some of my children were experiencing the bullying problems and one of them really had really excessive where she didn’t want to go to school.

And what happened is that people report, in our neighborhood if your car is not painted or things are kind of went undone, you get reported right away. I mean, it’s sad to say up here when people tend to want to mend there in other people’s business. But they would report things saying the kids weren’t getting bathe or there was no electricity in the house and all these things and a lot of them are coming unfounded but also I’m sad to say that me and my wife will get a lot of arguments and we were arguing for the kids and that’s not right and we’re good right now. At the same time my dad passed away or dying and [0:46:31 inaudible] with his death. And I was dealing the death of my dogs and a lot of other tragedies and I kept going around. I couldn’t get work even at a place McDonald’s said, well, you’re going to leave us, we don’t want to hire for the money paid and you have to start at the bottom, you know.

And so it was really kind of hard. Well, this last time, social service came out on Wednesday and when they came out on Wednesday, we weren’t at home. But because they saw three cars parked in our driveway and of course our yard we had not been paying the water bills so our yard was kind of dead looking so that didn’t really add to things. They tried to look in and they saw some boxes of my dad’s belongings and some of my dad’s furniture were stored in the back under [0:47:14 inaudible] and so forth because I just didn’t have the room and I didn’t have the funds to have storage.

So we weren’t there. They called the police and the police I guess tried to get in and again we weren’t there. So I got win that our kids were talked to at school and I tried to find out who it was and no one tell me who it was. And I had to go up the food chain to the director of CFS. And when I finally, you know, got that office they provided me with a number of the social worker, so I called the social worker. And then it turned, return my phone call and they want to insist to come out right away. I said, “Well, can we make an appointment for Friday?” They said, “No, we have to be up there Thursday.” And I said, well, my wife had some appointment, it’s really important for her and so forth.

So I was [0:48:06 inaudible] before they get back and of course she didn’t. So on Thursday I proceed to pick up my children like I always do and this is a good time for me in one respect because I can bond with them. I work three hours a week, you know, Monday through Friday, I was never seeing the family as much. But the money was nice to them and they like that part. So anyway, I’m picking up my son, one son is at a private school, ride a bus to pick up the other daughter is at middle school and my youngest is at the elementary school, so he’s the first one to be picked up. So when I picked him up, you know, I proceeded to go get mom because mom was downtown on an hour that needed to be picked up. We only have one car that was operational.

And so I proceeded to go down. I went for almost — in my 50-minute drive [0:48:57 inaudible] to me there was a detective, on my car, following me. And by the time I got close to pick up mom, a black guy pulled over and he started to say, well, there’s some violations. I said, “Which one? Wait a minute.” And also the detective walked up and he introduced who he was and he said — he insisted me to go back to the house, they had to see the house. And it wouldn’t be very — it’s not transparent and deceptive to know what I was really experiencing. And of course my little boy who’s 10 has gotten terrified.

And so I said, “Well, can I get mom, because mom needs to be there.” He said, “Oh, no, you can’t get mom.” So mom of course stayed for four hours at this place, didn’t know what was going on or anything like that. And again we, you know, had cut back our cell phones and we didn’t have really the communication that we would normally have. And so I come back to place and there was the fire department called enforcement. There were a total of 19 people at my house like I did something terribly wrong.

At the same time I’m trying to interview with the social workers. The police were asking questions, fires asking questions. And so they come into the house and, you know, there is the furniture of my dad’s [0:50:13 inaudible] walkways and insist they couldn’t get around but how can 19 people go downstairs and go to bedrooms and they couldn’t get around. And they’re checking the smoke alarms and it looked like they’re on a hype or something and asked them about weapons or something like that.

Meanwhile, my wife is worried to death, didn’t know what’s going on and the children normally picked up by dad were wondering they’re being picked up by social service or the police. I don’t know who picked them up. So we’re talking along and they’re saying, you know, you can’t have things endangered to the kids. And I said, well, the kids are okay. We have a meter box running and the utility bills. And they were definitely saying, “We’re going to take up because it’s unsafe for them.”

And so my little one who’s vibe to me was, you know, tearfully taken from me and all the way like I committed some big crime. They didn’t really tell specifically what I was charged with. I wasn’t charged, I was not arrested or anything. And everybody left and they told me the kids are going to Orangewood and this is in Orange County. And so I went and got the wife and immediately we arranged the [0:51:26 inaudible] that day. We didn’t have a fund for an attorney and we were just kind of overwhelmed both of us. And so we later found out that they were taken in social services and had a meeting the next day I think it’s Friday about where they placed the kids. And they were trying to conduct an interview during the meeting with my wife, which is stupid because she was just terrified, I mean she was just — that’s a long place to it.

There’s a lot of a very lack of transparency, a lot of deception and a lot of toys and we’re coming up with things and the next thing we know I guess they talked to my daughter who alleged had inappropriate sexual behaviors, that’s what they’re trying to use the word sex, they’re trying to blow something out. You know, we’re not alcoholics, we don’t drink, we don’t do drugs, we never had any trouble with the law or anything. And so they put them in Orangewood for a couple of days and we’re trying to get them relocated because they didn’t want to return to the house because they felt the house was unsafe. I mean, there was nothing that in our opinion it was cluttered, yes.

And it was definitely stuck with furniture and so forth with the rooms. The rooms are clean where the kids stay and there’s food and there’s water and electricity and everything. I said, well, [0:52:44 inaudible] has been up before and they never really say anything about my parents’ belongings and so [0:52:48 inaudible] security. It’s like you’re driving, you know, 56 miles an hour on a 50 mile an hour roadway and then one day the cop pulls you over and say you’re over the speed limit.

And so we are just trying to follow what they want and we got to go with my wife’s sister and her husband and they were temporarily put in to their care which is good because we’re trying to keep them out in Orangewood. There was a beehive over there. My kids were telling me some horror stories and I’ve heard some horror stories in Orangewood where the kids, even boys have been raped there and so forth by the workers. You know, it’s really interesting when you get into the CFS system, majority of the people have all kinds of issues themselves if you look at them. They don’t look very professional. And I’m not trying to be disrespectful with all due respect because it is a job but it’s kind of like they got the low end of the spectrum of people that don’t have [0:53:45 inaudible] or in there for whatever reason.

All right. [0:53:49 inaudible] didn’t care of the other people but without no money, without no finances, we are just — we’re just riding buses. And so we’re in the system and the system is very deception. They’re saying, we have goals, we need reunification. Well, they say the word but they don’t practice it because for nine months the first social worker, well, I should say one of the main social workers with the one that was handling our case after the court and we — my blood Native American, I’m a Lakota Sioux, one third of Lakota Sioux because my great grandmother is a full blood Lakota Sioux.

There’s things I didn’t know about being a native American that I have rights that have been violated. And so we are going along with the system kind of learning as you go. We’re trying to get help and of course they give you the defense attorneys with you, got so many cases. It’s pointless dealing with them because they don’t care. I mean, it’s like I call them up and say showing me to talk about this. So we had the first court case, another court case in six month, and in December that was supposed to be the reunification. They said, oh, no, no, it’s just a checkup time because you got 18 months. I said I know I got 18 months. They keep sending you a letter certified mail. They get very difficult to get a sign for it and you have to say that you know you’re aware of it, you’re right, 18 months. I said, “Why we’re making such a big case out of this whole thing? I mean, don’t you know how horribly you’ve done things?” And it’s like they just go over and over.

I said, look, I admit I’ve done some things wrong but I haven’t done things that were not true because the kids were being coached. They’re being coached by family members, mom and dad are getting against each other. Mom and dad were struggling. Mom walked after the first day of court and went to a shelter and stayed away but then she find out that was working, came back home with dad trying to work on their relationship and it’s been so hard. It’s like [0:55:50 inaudible] the rules change, you know what I’m saying? When you’re in the system the rule changed, so what happened is that as you go into the system they make one rule and then [0:56:01 inaudible] change, it’s like we used to have [0:56:04 inaudible] system at the home where they’re temporary at and then they took away that right.

And then for instance we used to have multiple locations. So last things last a week, they now say that we have to go at their location they picked and the kids are getting tired of it. The kids are saying, we have to do this with mom and dad. What they’re trying to do is they’re trying to drive our kids. It looks like their agenda isn’t what they’re saying. And so we had this court case in 21st then our attorney was telling us we’re going to have reunification and so we can’t do anything. I said, what do you mean? And then they postponed it to February and then we showed up in February, I mean the day before February I’ve tried to talk to my attorney who I asked for two months can we talk ahead and she said that, well, this is the hearing. I said, well, this is the hearing we had to be prepared for it.

Well, funny on the day of the hearing she gets a bed sickness and doesn’t show up so they cancel that, so now we move to March 1st and so…

Vincent Davis: Sir?

Bob: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, I’m sorry.

Vincent Davis: I’m sorry. I’m sorry but I’m going to have to cut you off again. We’re running out of time. We only have a couple of minutes left in the show but I invite you to call back next week. Call earlier in the show so you’d be early, you know, you’ll be in front of the call log, all right?

Bob: Yeah. I called at 8:00 but I didn’t talk to you. I tried to put a call into you on Friday and I can call you later today or tomorrow but we need to talk and I think I got what you need and so I just…

Vincent Davis: I’m sorry I had to cut him off but there are some things we only have couple minutes left in the show. Number one, remember, get experienced and expert legal help. Work with your attorney, be it a private attorney or court appointed attorney. Call us if you want a second opinion.

Number two, get the necessary information that you need. Go to my website, download my free eBook. The other thing that you can consider is you can consider coming to our February 27th live seminar. This month the seminar is going to be in Arcadia. I have been asked by people to have that seminar to be put on a webinar as well. We’re working on it. I don’t think we’ll have that done by this February.

You can also listen to all of our past radio shows at talkradioexperts.com. finally, vote in — remember to vote, remember to elect family-friendly state legislators, family-friendly judges. Your vote is important. We can represent you in these cases on a private basis. You can call us and talk to us about that. We can represent you on these matters — well, not represent you on these matters but we can give you advice. You can call us and ask us about that.

In some situations I can even write a memo or a letter for you to read and for you to share with your attorney to get additional ideas. But whoever your attorney is make sure you have to listen to them, make sure you take their advice because their advice is better than you trying to figure out things for yourself. Please listen to us next week Saturday, 8:00 AM and I’ll see you on the radio.

When you talk to me, Vincent W. Davis, you can be sure of one thing, that I am listening. Child Protective Services (CPS or DCFS) and your accusers have their story, and it is our job to make sure that your story is heard and we keep your family together. If your kids or grand-kids have already been taken, we will find the best and fastest way to reunite your family.

Call me personally - 888-888-6582 - I am waiting to hear your story now, to defend you and keep your family together or reunite you and your precious loved ones.